http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2013/10/15/t
he-international-monetary-fund-lays-the-
groundwork-for-global-wealth-confiscation/
The International Monetary Fund Lays The
Groundwork For Global Wealth Confiscation
Comment Now Follow Comments
2.4k
280
31
183
205
In this handout provided by the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), International Monetary
Fund Deputy Director Michael Keen presents the
Fiscal Monitor Press Conference October 9, 2013
at the IMF Headquarters in Washington, DC. The
report said that emerging-market governments
were at economic risk. (Image credit: Getty
Images via @daylife)
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) quietly
dropped a bomb in its October Fiscal Monitor
Report. Titled “Taxing Times,” the report paints a
dire picture for advanced economies with high
debts that fail to aggressively “mobilize domestic
revenue.” It goes on to build a case for drastic
measures and recommends a series of escalating
income and consumption tax increases
culminating in the direct confiscation of assets.
Yes, you read that right. But don’t take it from me.
The report itself says:
Is Eric Holder Playing Don Corleone To Jamie
Dimon's Bonasera?
Bill Frezza
Contributor
The Land Of The Free Is Now A Nation Of Sheep,
Wolves, Pigs And Sloths
Bill Frezza
Contributor
President Obama's 'Syrialoquy': To Bomb, Or Not
To Bomb
Bill Frezza
Contributor
Is Uncle Sam Really The Greatest Entrepreneur
Of All Time?
Bill Frezza
Contributor
“The sharp deterioration of the public finances in
many countries has revived interest in a “capital
levy”— a one-off tax on private wealth—as an
exceptional measure to restore debt sustainability.
The appeal is that such a tax, if it is implemented
before avoidance is possible and there is a belief
that it will never be repeated, does not distort
behavior (and may be seen by some as fair). …
The conditions for success are strong, but also
need to be weighed against the risks of the
alternatives, which include repudiating public debt
or inflating it away. … The tax rates needed to
bring down public debt to precrisis levels,
moreover, are sizable: reducing debt ratios to
end-2007 levels would require (for a sample of 15
euro area countries) a tax rate of about 10
percent on households with positive net wealth.
(page 49)”
Note three takeaways. First, IMF economists
know there are not enough rich people to fund
today’s governments even if 100 percent of the
assets of the 1 percent were expropriated. That
means that all households with positive net wealth
—everyone with retirement savings or home
equity—would have their assets plundered under
the IMF’s formulation.
Second, such a repudiation of private property will
not pay off Western governments’ debts or fund
budgets going forward. It will merely “restore debt
sustainability,” allowing free-spending sovereigns
to keep tapping the bond markets until the next
crisis comes along—for which stronger measures
will be required, of course.
Third, should politicians fail to muster the courage
to engage in this kind of wholesale robbery, the
only alternative scenario the IMF posits is public
debt repudiation and hyperinflation. Structural
reform proposals for the Ponzi-scheme
entitlement programs that are bankrupting us are
nowhere to be seen.
If ever there were a roadmap for prompting
massive capital flight and emigration of productive
citizens toward capitalism’s nascent frontiers in
Asia, this is it.
The IMF justifies its tax increases by highlighting
trends in income inequality along with a claimed
decline in the progressivity of most income tax
regimes. Using “perceived equity” (otherwise
known as “envy”) as the key metric motivating tax
policy, the report intentionally conflates tax rates
with tax revenue, lamenting a decline in the top
marginal income tax rates paid by the highest
earners. Never mind that these high earners have
been forking over more money, a higher
percentage of their gross income, and a larger
share of aggregate national tax revenue in recent
years. It also ignores the Laffer Curve effects that
are clearly visible in the data. As for incentive, the
report pays no heed to the idea that wealth and
income can only be taxed if someone is motivated
to create it.
The report’s most chilling aspect is the clinical
manner in which it discusses how to restrict the
mobility of the rich, along with the inconvenience
of factoring in their “well being.” Again, to quote
the report:
“Financial wealth is mobile, and so, ultimately, are
people. … There may be a case for taxing
different forms of wealth differently according to
their mobility … Substantial progress likely
requires enhanced international cooperation to
make it harder for the very well-off to evade
taxation by placing funds elsewhere.
“A revenue-maximizing approach to taxing the rich
effectively puts a weight of zero on their well-
being—contentious, to say the least. What then if
some weight is indeed attached to the well-being
of the richest? Figure 19 provides a way to think
about the trade-off between equity and efficiency
considerations in setting the top marginal rate in
that case. … If one attaches less weight to those
with the highest incomes, the vote would be to
increase the top marginal rate.”
Yes, this is where the bankruptcy of the modern
entitlement state is taking us—capital controls and
exit restrictions so the proverbial four wolves and
a lamb can vote on what’s for dinner. That’s the
only way to keep citizens worried about ending up
on the menu from voting with their feet. Again,
straight from the report:
“There is a surprisingly large amount of
experience to draw on, as such levies were widely
adopted in Europe after World War I.”
And we all know how well that worked out.
he-international-monetary-fund-lays-the-
groundwork-for-global-wealth-confiscation/
The International Monetary Fund Lays The
Groundwork For Global Wealth Confiscation
Comment Now Follow Comments
2.4k
280
31
183
205
In this handout provided by the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), International Monetary
Fund Deputy Director Michael Keen presents the
Fiscal Monitor Press Conference October 9, 2013
at the IMF Headquarters in Washington, DC. The
report said that emerging-market governments
were at economic risk. (Image credit: Getty
Images via @daylife)
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) quietly
dropped a bomb in its October Fiscal Monitor
Report. Titled “Taxing Times,” the report paints a
dire picture for advanced economies with high
debts that fail to aggressively “mobilize domestic
revenue.” It goes on to build a case for drastic
measures and recommends a series of escalating
income and consumption tax increases
culminating in the direct confiscation of assets.
Yes, you read that right. But don’t take it from me.
The report itself says:
Is Eric Holder Playing Don Corleone To Jamie
Dimon's Bonasera?
Bill Frezza
Contributor
The Land Of The Free Is Now A Nation Of Sheep,
Wolves, Pigs And Sloths
Bill Frezza
Contributor
President Obama's 'Syrialoquy': To Bomb, Or Not
To Bomb
Bill Frezza
Contributor
Is Uncle Sam Really The Greatest Entrepreneur
Of All Time?
Bill Frezza
Contributor
“The sharp deterioration of the public finances in
many countries has revived interest in a “capital
levy”— a one-off tax on private wealth—as an
exceptional measure to restore debt sustainability.
The appeal is that such a tax, if it is implemented
before avoidance is possible and there is a belief
that it will never be repeated, does not distort
behavior (and may be seen by some as fair). …
The conditions for success are strong, but also
need to be weighed against the risks of the
alternatives, which include repudiating public debt
or inflating it away. … The tax rates needed to
bring down public debt to precrisis levels,
moreover, are sizable: reducing debt ratios to
end-2007 levels would require (for a sample of 15
euro area countries) a tax rate of about 10
percent on households with positive net wealth.
(page 49)”
Note three takeaways. First, IMF economists
know there are not enough rich people to fund
today’s governments even if 100 percent of the
assets of the 1 percent were expropriated. That
means that all households with positive net wealth
—everyone with retirement savings or home
equity—would have their assets plundered under
the IMF’s formulation.
Second, such a repudiation of private property will
not pay off Western governments’ debts or fund
budgets going forward. It will merely “restore debt
sustainability,” allowing free-spending sovereigns
to keep tapping the bond markets until the next
crisis comes along—for which stronger measures
will be required, of course.
Third, should politicians fail to muster the courage
to engage in this kind of wholesale robbery, the
only alternative scenario the IMF posits is public
debt repudiation and hyperinflation. Structural
reform proposals for the Ponzi-scheme
entitlement programs that are bankrupting us are
nowhere to be seen.
If ever there were a roadmap for prompting
massive capital flight and emigration of productive
citizens toward capitalism’s nascent frontiers in
Asia, this is it.
The IMF justifies its tax increases by highlighting
trends in income inequality along with a claimed
decline in the progressivity of most income tax
regimes. Using “perceived equity” (otherwise
known as “envy”) as the key metric motivating tax
policy, the report intentionally conflates tax rates
with tax revenue, lamenting a decline in the top
marginal income tax rates paid by the highest
earners. Never mind that these high earners have
been forking over more money, a higher
percentage of their gross income, and a larger
share of aggregate national tax revenue in recent
years. It also ignores the Laffer Curve effects that
are clearly visible in the data. As for incentive, the
report pays no heed to the idea that wealth and
income can only be taxed if someone is motivated
to create it.
The report’s most chilling aspect is the clinical
manner in which it discusses how to restrict the
mobility of the rich, along with the inconvenience
of factoring in their “well being.” Again, to quote
the report:
“Financial wealth is mobile, and so, ultimately, are
people. … There may be a case for taxing
different forms of wealth differently according to
their mobility … Substantial progress likely
requires enhanced international cooperation to
make it harder for the very well-off to evade
taxation by placing funds elsewhere.
“A revenue-maximizing approach to taxing the rich
effectively puts a weight of zero on their well-
being—contentious, to say the least. What then if
some weight is indeed attached to the well-being
of the richest? Figure 19 provides a way to think
about the trade-off between equity and efficiency
considerations in setting the top marginal rate in
that case. … If one attaches less weight to those
with the highest incomes, the vote would be to
increase the top marginal rate.”
Yes, this is where the bankruptcy of the modern
entitlement state is taking us—capital controls and
exit restrictions so the proverbial four wolves and
a lamb can vote on what’s for dinner. That’s the
only way to keep citizens worried about ending up
on the menu from voting with their feet. Again,
straight from the report:
“There is a surprisingly large amount of
experience to draw on, as such levies were widely
adopted in Europe after World War I.”
And we all know how well that worked out.